If Felix Magath Was Still Manager

[Dougie]

I would invite anyone who has even the remotest bit sympathy for Magath, to go back and watch the highlights of those first games in the Championship with Magath in charge, compared even to the first few games with Symons (they're all on Youtube on the club's page). Particularly the goals we conceded given his choice to release Hangeland.

[toshes mate]

From all that I remember of the early days of Khan's stewardship of FFC they were days of a trigger happy, 'quick fire' regime, that saw panic ruling over carefully nuanced appointments with appropriate monitoring of progress.   Jol was perhaps the one 'shot' that was, in one sense or another, appropriate, but Meulensteen and Magath both seemed to be ill judged at both ends of the recruitment process.

I have always believed that you can see 'a difference' whenever a new coach takes over and it is as true of the assistant coaches as it is of the head.  The 'difference' can, initially, be misleading, and then I am guided by the owner's intended recruitment objective – avoid relegation; improve position in table; obtain promotion, etc – which tends to change with longevity.  The problem with short tenures is the objectives often seem to get lost among the many other problems failure (as the direct opposite of success) brings with it.

Meulensteen's sacking and Magath's appointment were heavily criticised in the media and by people much closer to Fulham FC.  Should either have been given longer?   I think that may have been true of Meulensteen but I cannot see any justification for believing Magath should have been given the length of time he was since his original task was to avoid relegation.   He should have been fired when relegation was not avoided since he did not achieve his objective.   That may have prompted a profound look at how the Khans were recruiting their head coach and their players – the 'Symons effect' well before it actually happened. 

[Woolly Mammoth]

So we are all agreed then, we won't be inviting Mr Magath back to Craven Cottage.
Also there was a rumour that he was doubling up as Sir Craven of Cottage in his spare time.
Apparently because he was a control freak, he could not bear the thought of someone else wearing the costume.
All that makes sense because I defy anyone to say they ever saw Magath and Sir Craven together at the same time.
You either saw one or the other, but never both together.

[Milo]

From all that I remember of the early days of Khan's stewardship of FFC they were days of a trigger happy, 'quick fire' regime, that saw panic ruling over carefully nuanced appointments with appropriate monitoring of progress.   Jol was perhaps the one 'shot' that was, in one sense or another, appropriate, but Meulensteen and Magath both seemed to be ill judged at both ends of the recruitment process.

I have always believed that you can see 'a difference' whenever a new coach takes over and it is as true of the assistant coaches as it is of the head.  The 'difference' can, initially, be misleading, and then I am guided by the owner's intended recruitment objective – avoid relegation; improve position in table; obtain promotion, etc – which tends to change with longevity.  The problem with short tenures is the objectives often seem to get lost among the many other problems failure (as the direct opposite of success) brings with it.

Meulensteen's sacking and Magath's appointment were heavily criticised in the media and by people much closer to Fulham FC.  Should either have been given longer?   I think that may have been true of Meulensteen but I cannot see any justification for believing Magath should have been given the length of time he was since his original task was to avoid relegation.   He should have been fired when relegation was not avoided since he did not achieve his objective.   That may have prompted a profound look at how the Khans were recruiting their head coach and their players – the 'Symons effect' well before it actually happened. 

Took over in Feb didn't he?

With a retiring, aged squad bottom of the league?

What are the odds of survival realistically regardless of manager?

Then he had a complete squad overhaul in summer so realistically you have to give him another 10 games but he was only given 7.

I just think people have selective memories over what we were all calling for at the time - youth! He played youth and got them playing some decent stuff but they were taken apart. Agreed he and us as a fan unit completely underestimated the Championship. However I think the bad press he gets is so harsh given he was only following the will of the fans.

[Marcel_Gecov]

From all that I remember of the early days of Khan's stewardship of FFC they were days of a trigger happy, 'quick fire' regime, that saw panic ruling over carefully nuanced appointments with appropriate monitoring of progress.   Jol was perhaps the one 'shot' that was, in one sense or another, appropriate, but Meulensteen and Magath both seemed to be ill judged at both ends of the recruitment process.

I have always believed that you can see 'a difference' whenever a new coach takes over and it is as true of the assistant coaches as it is of the head.  The 'difference' can, initially, be misleading, and then I am guided by the owner's intended recruitment objective – avoid relegation; improve position in table; obtain promotion, etc – which tends to change with longevity.  The problem with short tenures is the objectives often seem to get lost among the many other problems failure (as the direct opposite of success) brings with it.

Meulensteen's sacking and Magath's appointment were heavily criticised in the media and by people much closer to Fulham FC.  Should either have been given longer?   I think that may have been true of Meulensteen but I cannot see any justification for believing Magath should have been given the length of time he was since his original task was to avoid relegation.   He should have been fired when relegation was not avoided since he did not achieve his objective.   That may have prompted a profound look at how the Khans were recruiting their head coach and their players – the 'Symons effect' well before it actually happened. 

Took over in Feb didn't he?

With a retiring, aged squad bottom of the league?

What are the odds of survival realistically regardless of manager?

Then he had a complete squad overhaul in summer so realistically you have to give him another 10 games but he was only given 7.

I just think people have selective memories over what we were all calling for at the time - youth! He played youth and got them playing some decent stuff but they were taken apart. Agreed he and us as a fan unit completely underestimated the Championship. However I think the bad press he gets is so harsh given he was only following the will of the fans.

If we hadn't of got rid of him when we did we were goners. We needed youth, but to play Cameron Burgessas a DM at the age he was then was ridiculoius and he got bullied. To decide to sack Hangeland, alienate some very gd players who could have stayed with us, shun Ruiz. There was so much wrong with how he managed and the bad press is justified.

[hovewhite]

Think everyone is entitled to a view,the thing he did that needed doing was moving on a heavy aged squad which had to be done.as for his record etc felt he didn't no the English game.

[Facts Not Fiction]

He was the wrong manager, in a failing setup, with poor stewardship and management. Everything was going wrong during his time at the club, and unfortunately, this didn't stop on the pitch.

You can't excuse the 6/7 defeats we suffered at the start of the season. Coupled with his odd managerial tendencies, I don't think he was ever going to last.

A worthwhile gamble, but don't think was anything more.

[Milo]

From all that I remember of the early days of Khan's stewardship of FFC they were days of a trigger happy, 'quick fire' regime, that saw panic ruling over carefully nuanced appointments with appropriate monitoring of progress.   Jol was perhaps the one 'shot' that was, in one sense or another, appropriate, but Meulensteen and Magath both seemed to be ill judged at both ends of the recruitment process.

I have always believed that you can see 'a difference' whenever a new coach takes over and it is as true of the assistant coaches as it is of the head.  The 'difference' can, initially, be misleading, and then I am guided by the owner's intended recruitment objective – avoid relegation; improve position in table; obtain promotion, etc – which tends to change with longevity.  The problem with short tenures is the objectives often seem to get lost among the many other problems failure (as the direct opposite of success) brings with it.

Meulensteen's sacking and Magath's appointment were heavily criticised in the media and by people much closer to Fulham FC.  Should either have been given longer?   I think that may have been true of Meulensteen but I cannot see any justification for believing Magath should have been given the length of time he was since his original task was to avoid relegation.   He should have been fired when relegation was not avoided since he did not achieve his objective.   That may have prompted a profound look at how the Khans were recruiting their head coach and their players – the 'Symons effect' well before it actually happened. 

Took over in Feb didn't he?

With a retiring, aged squad bottom of the league?

What are the odds of survival realistically regardless of manager?

Then he had a complete squad overhaul in summer so realistically you have to give him another 10 games but he was only given 7.

I just think people have selective memories over what we were all calling for at the time - youth! He played youth and got them playing some decent stuff but they were taken apart. Agreed he and us as a fan unit completely underestimated the Championship. However I think the bad press he gets is so harsh given he was only following the will of the fans.

If we hadn't of got rid of him when we did we were goners. We needed youth, but to play Cameron Burgessas a DM at the age he was then was ridiculoius and he got bullied. To decide to sack Hangeland, alienate some very gd players who could have stayed with us, shun Ruiz. There was so much wrong with how he managed and the bad press is justified.

I would argue those alienated and sold were aging players who didn't like the idea of having to trudge up Scottish mountains and suddenly become ultra fit.

They then used the cheese reference which would have been taken completely out of context and blown out of proportion from the likely tongue in cheek intentions or indeed a mis translation to hammer their point into the heads of fans whose judgements were already clouded by lack of results on the pitch.

I understand where you are coming from but I also understand where Magath was coming from!

[Lighthouse]

Playing youth players is one thing but playing them in the wrong positions is another. He gave the impression that he wasn't confident or sure that he knew about the opposition we were playing, the type of players he had in his squad or the overall standard in the Championship. He appeared reluctant to learn from the mistakes he made.

No doubt the squad was poor and ageing and he had to cut down on the wage bill. But we needed somebody who had some idea what was needed. He seemed to prefer just the burn and slash approach. 

[Milo]

Playing youth players is one thing but playing them in the wrong positions is another. He gave the impression that he wasn't confident or sure that he knew about the opposition we were playing, the type of players he had in his squad or the overall standard in the Championship. He appeared reluctant to learn from the mistakes he made.

No doubt the squad was poor and ageing and he had to cut down on the wage bill. But we needed somebody who had some idea what was needed. He seemed to prefer just the burn and slash approach. 

I thought there was quite a bit of squad rotation and quite a bit of uncertainty around what was his best team. So you could argue he changed it up too much and experimented too much eg Burn right back as has been quoted.

Anyway, it's all history as they say. I don't think Statto or I were intending to defend Magaths output.. more that we wanted people to see it from another perspective. That things didn't fall into place. That it was multi factorial and multi-step. Taking over in Feb when we were all but relegated, the drop from the Prem and the FFP rules and players needing to leave, aged squad members kicking up a fuss due to training regimes, and a strong fan pressure to play the kids. You can see rationale for everything he did.. and it had worked in the past.. and being dealt the odd bad hand things snowballed.

Anyway it's all history as I said.

[Woolly Mammoth]

I understand where you are coming from but I also understand where Magath was coming from!
[/quote]

I think I know where Magath was coming from, a flaming lunatic asylum, and he proceeded to throw the baby out with the bath water.

[Cambridge Pete]

Why are we even talking about him?

[toshes mate]

Whether or not Magath was/is, potentially, a 'good' manager is not really the point of focus when looking back, is it?  Being a good Fulham manager was the point of focus. He came to FFC with an objective to keep us in the PL and he obviously believed or thought he could do it or he wouldn't have come.  I mentioned the feeling amongst many people on his appointment that it was not a good 'Fulham' move to appoint him and, IMO, no matter how long he had been given to manage the Club the end product would have been much the same.  I also mentioned the 'panic' in the Board Room with Khan not thinking before he acted on a number of occasions and at different of levels of naivety and between all concerned I think any chance of PL survival was lost to all concerned because of this. 

I don't blame Magath for anything other than not being the person to turn FFC around, not at that time, and probably not at any time.  But he wasn't to know that any more than Khan was.

[Dougie]

Two posters now have referred to him "choosing" or "deciding" to get rid of Hangeland.

When you are relegated and need to get a wage bill down from £70m to £30m, you probably don't have the option of keeping an aging defender of £40k per week... as a lot of people on this forum have pointed out, as it happens, in relation to John Terry at Villa

We ended up breaching FFP so evidently he should have got rid of more, not less, of those old, expensive players

£30k a week is £1.5m a year. That's probably around what we spent on Bodurov for fee plus wages, or maybe how much we spent on, say, Bodurov and Taggart combined, although it's all speculative. We spent £11m on McCormack, half a million on Smith, and fees on players like Eisfeld and Casasola who never featured, and unnecessary wages on flops like Chihi and Voser. It's not as though his hand was twisted on Hangeland, who could have helped form the spine of a much better team for that season than the one we ended up with.

[Nick Bateman]

That's because no decent club will touch him with a barge pole. In fact come to think of it, no club will touch him with a barge pole. Not even a wooden club.
Even his wife boos him every time she sees him.

064.gif  :54:

[hovewhite]

Who gives a monkeys!

[Marinelloguthrie]

On the point of new managers, in my experience with our managers  the most successful managers have a pattern of play that is clear from the their first match. Whether the players executed the managers wishes or not a clear direction of play was being implemented.
Tiganas syle was obvious from the friendlies, with players like Melville, Symons, Brevett to name a few improving a few levels in terms of playing 'football'. If im correct Roy's first game was a draw at Bolton but you could see a clear pattern being implemented.
Again with Slav it was clear he had strict pattern of play but as we saw he needed the players to do it.
Interestingly each manager made big decisions on big players or handled losing them with little fuss, Horsefield, Bullard and Mccormack respectively.
Personally i liked Rene, the home game against Liverpool springs to mind as a great performance with a bad last minute.

[Woolly Mammoth]

Who gives a monkeys!

A Chimp

[aaronmcguigan]

When we were relegated,  the only thing good about the team was the youth. Jol bought a load of ex Tottenham, and older players whereas Meulensteens short reign ended up giving us 2 united trainees, more loanees and Mitroglou.

The squad was old and unfit.

What was needed was youth, and strict training to improve fitness levels. He brought exactly that but to echo previous posts, he done it all gung ho, rather than phasing it in, leading to literal men against boys in the first game against Ipswich.
Any manager worth their salt will dip into the premier league for some decent premier league experience to help a young team, whereas we went to the premier league and brought in the likes of Eisfeld and that was it.

He wasn't helped either by the reputation we had garnered following relegation, as well as the ex players like Riise and Hangeland criticising him. They both had woeful seasons and had both left at the end of relegation season.

His methods and his personality were never going to work, especially when he was drastic with the change to youth, ruining early careers like Woodrow, Burgess and Joronen, but he was however the type of manager we needed at the time, albeit a younger more dynamic diluted version.

[alfie]

When we were relegated,  the only thing good about the team was the youth. Jol bought a load of ex Tottenham, and older players whereas Meulensteens short reign ended up giving us 2 united trainees, more loanees and Mitroglou.

The squad was old and unfit.

What was needed was youth, and strict training to improve fitness levels. He brought exactly that but to echo previous posts, he done it all gung ho, rather than phasing it in, leading to literal men against boys in the first game against Ipswich.
Any manager worth their salt will dip into the premier league for some decent premier league experience to help a young team, whereas we went to the premier league and brought in the likes of Eisfeld and that was it.

He wasn't helped either by the reputation we had garnered following relegation, as well as the ex players like Riise and Hangeland criticising him. They both had woeful seasons and had both left at the end of relegation season.

His methods and his personality were never going to work, especially when he was drastic with the change to youth, ruining early careers like Woodrow, Burgess and Joronen, but he was however the type of manager we needed at the time, albeit a younger more dynamic diluted version.

Did he ruin early careers of those 3 or maybe they were/are just not good enough.